How would you react if communion began to be offered under one species in your parish?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Duesenberg

Guest
Following influenza season you read a notice from your pastor in the parish bulletin that Holy Communion will continue to be distributed indefinitely via one species, just as it had been during the flu season. The notice carries an explanation and has a very positive/nice tone to it. How would you react?
  • It really wouldn’t impact me as I already receive via one species anyway.
  • I would be deeply thankful of the pastor’s decision.
  • I would accept the pastor’s decision.
  • I would talk to the pastor about it and then fully accept the change.
  • I would talk to him, but remain resentful of the change.
  • I would elevate it to the local bishop.
  • I would move to another parish.
  • I would quit the Catholic Church.
0 voters
 
Last edited:
Did you know , depending on the Church, priest, parish, number of EMC , that some Masses only offer communion under one species
 
Yeah I didn’t know cummunion under both species was a thing even until recently, I thought only the priest has the privilage of both.
 
I suppose it would depend on the accommodation offered to those of us with legitimate medical needs.
 
For many, many years in the two parishes where I was a member, one species was the norm. It’s only been in the last 15 years or so that I’ve been seeing two forms happening as a regular occurrence most places, rather than the wine/blood only being distributed on special occasions.
 
I wouldn’t mind at all. In fact I would probably ultimately be thankful as it would reduce the number of EMCs needed and could make it easier to one day hopefully install communion rails at our parish. (one can dream)
 
We only receive the Precious Body in the TLM, and I never partook of the Precious Blood when i used to attend the NO.

Reduce the EMHCs (they are only supposed to be for extreme circumstances and not for everyday as has become the norm).
 
The Eucharist is always offered under one species at my parish and has been since forever.
 
I don’t think I’d really notice. My parish only offers one species during daily mass. Sometimes I get confused on Sunday because the chalice is available and have to double back, lol.
 
You left off “this is a perfectly normal thing and happens during flu season or strep outbreaks”
 
What do you mean by “one species”?
 
Last edited:
Why wouldn’t it be both? Didn’t our Lord Jesus give both?
 
Christ is truly [present, Body Blood, Soul and DIvinity is either.
Many places don’t offer both, but around here, BOTH is the norm.
In our parish in Ireland though, only the priest receives the Blood.
So long as we are ABLE to partake of Communion, it’s fine. There 's no need to sow controversy where there is none.
 
I would accept the Pastor’s decision. Whether it’s the Precious Blood or Precious Body; it is the same Body, Blood, Soul & Divinty of Our Lord.
 
Joe1 said:
Why wouldn’t it be both? Didn’t our Lord Jesus give both?
Click to expand...
There are a number of things to consider including the following:
  • Can foster the false belief that neither species alone contains the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
  • Can make some feel “cheated” by those parishes that distribute Holy Communion under one kind.
  • Doubles the number of sacred vessels which need to be purified, which reduces the probability they will be purified by clerics or instituted acolytes as required by the Church.
  • Increases the amount of liturgical laundry (more purificators used.)
  • Increases the potential for creating an EMHC clique.
  • Does not allow for underscoring the particularly solemn nature of certain Masses (Easter, Christmas, etc.) by limiting communion under both kinds to these Masses.
  • Typically results in more than doubling the use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion which often leads to a host of problems, including the feeling of entitlement to serve as a EMHC.
  • Increases the possibility of profaning the Blessed Sacrament (double the number of communions.)
  • Fosters the horrible abuse of pouring the Precious Blood from flagons into individual chalices, particularly in large parishes or cathedrals.
  • Can cause consternation if the chalice is drained before one has a chance to receive communion.
  • Can greatly congest the activity in the sanctuary and the flow of communion distribution in many churches.
  • Greatly increases the probability that EMsHC will publicly refer to the Blessed Sacrament as “wine” or “bread.”
  • Cost of wine.
 
Last edited:
Noen of those things listed are problems except fo rthe poorly educated or the scrulpulous. The reason the Bishops want us to receive under both species is because of the Last Supper. Full stop. Those other things are regularly dealt with, and we are trained on how to deal with them.
There’s no such thing as a EMHC clique. That’s ludicrous. Anyone who is properly disposed can take the class and apply to be an EMHC. Father approves of them, or disallows.
I think the above are simply YOUR fears and concerns, but for most parishes with a healthy catechetical backgroind, none of these things are an issue.
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
Joe1:
Why wouldn’t it be both? Didn’t our Lord Jesus give both?
Click to expand...
There are a number of things to consider including the following:
  • Can foster the false belief that neither species alone contains the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
  • Can make some feel “cheated” by those parishes that distribute Holy Communion under one kind.
  • Doubles the number of sacred vessels which need to be purified, which reduces the probability they will be purified by clerics or instituted acolytes as required by the Church.
  • Increases the amount of liturgical laundry (more purificators used.)
  • Increases the potential for creating an EMHC clique.
  • Does not allow for underscoring the particularly solemn nature of certain Masses (Easter, Christmas, etc.) by limiting communion under both kinds to these Masses.
  • Typically results in more than doubling the use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion which often leads to a host of problems, including the feeling of entitlement to serve as a EMHC.
  • Increases the possibility of profaning the Blessed Sacrament (double the number of communions.)
  • Fosters the horrible abuse of pouring the Precious Blood from flagons into individual chalices, particularly in large parishes or cathedrals.
  • Can cause consternation if the chalice is drained before one has a chance to receive communion.
  • Can greatly congest the activity in the sanctuary and the flow of communion distribution in many churches.
  • Greatly increases the probability that EMsHC will publicly refer to the Blessed Sacrament as “wine” or “bread.”
  • Cost of wine.
Click to expand...
  1. Educate the laity
  2. Educate the laity
  3. Have the priest man up and do the dishes.*
  4. He can man up and do the laundry while at it
  5. Educate the laity
  6. Educate the laity
  7. Educate the laity
  8. Educate the laity
  9. Educate the laity
  10. Educate the laity
  11. Educate the laity and use the shape of the church properly
  12. Educate the laity
  13. Vast amounts of 100% grape wine can be purchased from Trader Joe’s for cheap. It’s called “Five buck chuck”
None of these things are “real” problems if a priest educates his parishoners properly.

*Sacred Vessels, since some apparently didn’t get the joke. This is purposeful hyperbole to prove a point about the degree to which the Priest is willing to go to shove off his responsibilities. More work to clean chalices is NO excuse to not offer the Holy Blood. No good priest is going to complain, nor will a good priest abdicate his right to take care of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
A major reason historically why the laity only received in one form is to reduce the chance they might come to believe one species was “more valid” or “better” than the other; it was seen as a measure to reduce confusion.

The host is also easier to hand out, particularly to those who cannot attend the church and require extraordinary ministers to bring it to them. Both kinds were the norm during the early church, then during the middle ages until Jacob of Miles challenged it in 1414 receiving just the host became the norm (and that was not a weekly thing, the laity received communion generally at special occasions like Easter rather then regularly). Communion was handed out directly by the clergy rather than ministers, so again it was more practical.

Receiving communion more regularly was something that was stressed by later Popes such as Leo XIII. Vatican II had quite a lot to say about it as well.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top